I just finished up a long-winded post at another board I frequent and realized that it'd probably be a topic of interest to you guys (and would probably produce better takes over here). To summarize, I started off by saying that CCGs are a joke because they typically result in rematches, mismatches, or both and that every conference should follow the Pac 10's lead by having 10 teams and 9 conference games. I suggested dropping ISU and Baylor from the Big XII. Some dumbass kid who is an embarrassment to all of the true Husker fans I know suggested dropping CU as well and adding TCU. Of course, I thought he was trolling at first, but when he really appeared to be serious, I found myself in the position of sizing up all the schools in the Big XII based on a number factors to determine which teams bring the most to the table. Here's what I came up with...
When you're talking about a team's value to a conference, you have to take a lot of factors into account. Off the top of my head, here are some of the main things to consider: local market size, national fan base outside of the local market, past success in both revenue sports (football and men's basketball), current standing in both sports, and potential for future success in those sports. There are other factors too, but those are the main criteria, IMO. So based on that, I'd rate the Big XII teams (plus TCU) as follows...
What do you guys think? Am I totally off base? What other factors do you think should be considered? I'm also curious to see how fans of other conferences would size up the "value" of their teams...
I actually like your list. CU and ATM are very close. ATM probably gets the nod if your bias is current success but CU gets it based on national recognition and history. I might swap TCU and Oklahoma State. Otherwise, well done.
King Crimson wrote:depends what the criteria are: i didn't check the link.
but the Denver doesn't mean squat. it's a Bronco market.
OU is on more in Denver than CU.
there is no way in revenue sports ATM, Mizzou, and Tech are below CU.
While I'm all too familiar with where CU stands in the local sports hierarchy (somewhere between the Rapids and Cherry Creek HS), Denver is still technically a Big XII market. You don't think you'd see as many OU games on there as you do now if CU were in, say, the Pac 10, do you?
WS,
CU & aTm was the one that I wrestled with the longest. I actually think aTm might have a bigger national following and they're better in both revenue sports right now, but they haven't won an MNC since the 40s. CU is in a bigger market and has less competition in-state, so I figured they have more upside. It might have been a bit of a homer pick, but this list is pretty subjective by nature...
the thing i don't understand about CU and TV in this market (Denver) is before the Big XII and current TV contract.....in the mid-late 80's CU had every game televised on one of the UHF stations. now, it's about 60/40 per games being on TV. that's one area CU and CFB fans take it in the short pants with the Big XII TV "deal".
hard to speculate about pac-10 and TV with CU. you never see pac 10 hoops games on the local networks. always the SEC. how does that work? after 4 years of Kentucky being on TV every weekend, i felt like i knew Tayshaun Prince and Keith Boggans personally.
i might take back Tech and Mizzou--but they've been better in the two revenue sports than CU the last 5 years--though Mizzou is a push, but "gets" the KC/STL market.
MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:I just finished up a long-winded post at another board I frequent and realized that it'd probably be a topic of interest to you guys (and would probably produce better takes over here). To summarize, I started off by saying that CCGs are a joke because they typically result in rematches, mismatches, or both and that every conference should follow the Pac 10's lead by having 10 teams and 9 conference games. I suggested dropping ISU and Baylor from the Big XII. Some dumbass kid who is an embarrassment to all of the true Husker fans I know suggested dropping CU as well and adding TCU. Of course, I thought he was trolling at first, but when he really appeared to be serious, I found myself in the position of sizing up all the schools in the Big XII based on a number factors to determine which teams bring the most to the table. Here's what I came up with...
When you're talking about a team's value to a conference, you have to take a lot of factors into account. Off the top of my head, here are some of the main things to consider: local market size, national fan base outside of the local market, past success in both revenue sports (football and men's basketball), current standing in both sports, and potential for future success in those sports. There are other factors too, but those are the main criteria, IMO. So based on that, I'd rate the Big XII teams (plus TCU) as follows...
What do you guys think? Am I totally off base? What other factors do you think should be considered? I'm also curious to see how fans of other conferences would size up the "value" of their teams...
Sorry Mike but we get rid of you guys before Baylor. At least Booler is competitive in a couple sports the conference competes in such as Track and Field (been nearly a qurter century since a non Baylor Grad won the 200m at the Olympics and it doesn't look to end with Wariner still the top runner in the event) baseball, softball, etcetera.
Not only that but Baylor, as a private school has more to offer the conference from legal standpoint. With a private school in the conference the schools as a whole can get away with not having to fully disclose much financial info.
Fact of the matter is that Baylor offers more to the Big 12 than many of the schools in the conference but they just suck at football.
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
i don't get the TCU love affair. sure, they beat OU in 05. what else? they have good baseball. Billy Tubbs took them to the NCAA tournament once with Lee Nailon. what else?
Oklahoma State is a golf powerhouse, good in baseball, and better than TCU historically in football and been to two basketball Final Fours (tm) in the last decade.
i don't see CU giving the conference that much, really. or even the Pac-10. CU has the minimum of sports to be D-1. if the cross country championships matter, then Baylor matters in the "low" sports.
King Crimson wrote:
i don't see CU giving the conference that much, really. or even the Pac-10. CU has the minimum of sports to be D-1. if the cross country championships matter, then Baylor matters in the "low" sports.
I couldn't disagree more. CU is one of the top 20 programs in college football history in virtually every measure. That alone makes CU a solid contributor to the Big 12. One bad season doesn't take away what a program has done historically. I just don't see how anyone could possibly rank CU lower than #6 or 7.
King Crimson wrote:
i don't see CU giving the conference that much, really. or even the Pac-10. CU has the minimum of sports to be D-1. if the cross country championships matter, then Baylor matters in the "low" sports.
I couldn't disagree more. CU is one of the top 20 programs in college football history in virtually every measure. That alone makes CU a solid contributor to the Big 12. One bad season doesn't take away what a program has done historically. I just don't see how anyone could possibly rank CU lower than #6 or 7.
that's actually about 25-30, but what else? they have an AD that runs in the red and is one sport away from the minimum for D-1.
it's more than one bad season. they don't sell out a 50,000 seat stadium, have one of the biggest money losing basketball programs in D-1 (documented).
i wouldn't rank them lower than 6 or 7, but certainly no higher.
King Crimson wrote:
i don't see CU giving the conference that much, really. or even the Pac-10. CU has the minimum of sports to be D-1. if the cross country championships matter, then Baylor matters in the "low" sports.
I couldn't disagree more. CU is one of the top 20 programs in college football history in virtually every measure. That alone makes CU a solid contributor to the Big 12. One bad season doesn't take away what a program has done historically. I just don't see how anyone could possibly rank CU lower than #6 or 7.
Sorry I have to call BS on this post. Colorado isn't in the top 20 in winning percentage (though they are knocking on the door at 21st).
Not top 20 in all time wins.
Not top 20in conference titles.
Not top 20 in consensus All Americans.
Actually I am starting to search for something they are in the top 20 of all time as measurable statistical catagory concerning football.
I know is is very subjective but CFB data warehouse ranks Colorado as the 42nd best all time program based on a points criteria in accomplishments on the field.
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
I don't know if I'd put Northwestern last in the Big Ten. They're the only private school in the conference. By law, a conference's meetings must be open to the general public unless they have at least one private school as a member.
For the Big East, you'd have to split the analysis between football and non-football members. Football members:
1. West Virginia
2. Louisville
3. Syracuse
4. South Florida
5. Pittsburgh
6. UConn
7. Cincinnati
8. Rutgers
Non-football members:
1. Notre Dame
2. Georgetown
3. St. John's
4. Villanova
5. DePaul
6. Marquette
7. Seton Hall
8. Providence
Jmo, anyway.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:I don't know if I'd put Northwestern last in the Big Ten. They're the only private school in the conference. By law, a conference's meetings must be open to the general public unless they have at least one private school as a member.
How does Northwestern being a private school negate their obvious lock on the #11 spot athletically? Who else would you put below them?
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Sudden Sam wrote:Kansas and Missouri ahead of A&M? Really?
Of course!
Kansas is one of the top 5 all time basketball programs. Is successfull historically in njumerous other sports, is one of the top academic institutions in the region (not just the conference) and has a very wealthy and affluent fan base.
Many of those same remarks can be made about Misery as well. But Misery also opens the door to the conference into the real midwest as well with a lot of Mizzou grads living in Yankee lands. Also Missouris school of Journalism is good way to keep the conference's sunshine pumpers in the national eye.
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
You B10 guys are showing your obvious football bias by placing Indiana so low on your lists when they are still THE preeminent basketball program in the conference. The criteria put forth includes hoops and IU has the most past success and the largest fanbase outside of the local market. Not to mention now that they have a coach they have one of if not the highest potentials for future success. When you look at the football side of things the loss of Coach Hep is a huge blow but before his passing he got the ball rolling on building a program that can compete for bowl bids year in and year out. Not to mention the ongoing upgrades to the stadium and facilities.
So putting football and basketball on more equal footing the Big 10 looks like this:
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Michigan
Indiana
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Purdue
Minnesota
Northwestern
"Our staff is going to ensure that anyone who attends this University and wears the Indiana uniform will make this privilege among their highest priorities and not treat the opportunity as an entitlement,'' Crean said in a statement. "We fully expect our student-athletes to accept the responsibilities academically, athletically and socially that come with representing one of the top programs in college basketball history."
SunCoast Sooner, that's all debatable. I'll admit that I can't find many top 20 measures "historically" but they are right there in three of the most important measures. CU ranks #17 in all time wins (by my research) and #23 in all time winning percentage. That alone qualifies them for top 20-25 program status. Those are the two best measures in my opinion of the historical performance of a program. All Americans are CHOSEN so there is some element of subjectiveness involved. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact though that CU has produced more than their share of All Americans over the years.
If we're talking all time history, CU is top 20 (or thereabouts) in wins and winning percentage. They are 23rd all time in bowl appearances. Not sure where they rank with their 12 bowl wins. They are fourth all time in 1000 yard rushers behind OU, Nebraska, and USC. I'm sure there are other obscure things like that out there and I'm sure I can find some more.
If we're talking recent history (last 20-25 years), CU consistently ranks top 20 in numerous measures:
-19th best winning percentage
-7th in wins against ranked teams
-5th longest streak without being shutout
-19th in NFL players produced
-4th in games played against ranked teams
-18th longest streak in nation without consecutive losing seasons
-9th in winners of major individual awards
-top 10 in Top 5 finishes in polls
-top 10 in Top 10 finishes in polls
-11th best winning percentage in road games
That's after 20 minutes of research. I'll amend my original assertion that CU is a top 20 all time program and change that to top 25 program based on their ranking of 17th in wins, 23rd in winning percentage, and 23rd in bowl appearances. I don't think anyone would dispute their ranking as at least a top 20 program in the last 20-25 years. Its all debatable though. For every stat I can give to back up my opinion, I'm sure you can give me one to support your opinion. That's the beauty of college football.
Last edited by Bearcat92 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:I don't know if I'd put Northwestern last in the Big Ten. They're the only private school in the conference. By law, a conference's meetings must be open to the general public unless they have at least one private school as a member.
How does Northwestern being a private school negate their obvious lock on the #11 spot athletically?
That one is quite simple, actually. Drop Northwestern, and you have to make the Big Ten meetings open to the general public. Do you really think the Big Ten wants to do that?
Merely by virtue of being the only private school in the conference, Northwestern gets a higher position than #11, if the standard is which school do you drop.
Who else would you put below them?
Minnesota. For the reasons stated above.
Last edited by Terry in Crapchester on Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:I don't know if I'd put Northwestern last in the Big Ten. They're the only private school in the conference. By law, a conference's meetings must be open to the general public unless they have at least one private school as a member.
Nevertheless, that just isn't enough to bump them up.
[quote="SunCoastSooner
The site I got my info from says 21st in winning percentage and late 20s in all time wins. Stassen and CFB data warehouse.[/quote]
Mine is from the CU Media Guide (maybe a little less credible) so I'm sure the truth is somewhere around the numbers each of us gave. Regardless of the exact rank, they are certainly in the top 25 area in wins, winning percentage, and bowl appearances. Those (along with bowl wins) are to me the most important measures. I'm enjoying the friendly debate though. It helps me to sharpen my researching skills :)
Actually I reread your post and you were talking the last 20-25 years it seems and not all time wins. I deleted my post because of that. I don't know the statistics over the last quarter a century.
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
SunCoastSooner wrote:There is a reason the Big 8 was still successfull while the SWC was dying.
1A. Oklahoma
1B. Nebraska
3. Texas
4. Kansas
5. Missouri
6. Texas A&M
7. Baylor
8. Oklahoma State
9. Colorado
10. Kansas State
11. Iowa State
12. Texas Tech.
This is fucking myopia at its best. Texas is by far the #1 value to the Big XII and Oklahoma is a close second. The first school that pops in everyone's mind when they think of the Big XII is Texas. Steady CWS apperances, they generally are ranked high in basketball and usually go to the sweet 16 or the elite 8 and their football program is consistently rated in the top ten. They also have a good golf program as well.
Shine wrote:You B10 guys are showing your obvious football bias by placing Indiana so low on your lists when they are still THE preeminent basketball program in the conference. The criteria put forth includes hoops and IU has the most past success and the largest fanbase outside of the local market. Not to mention now that they have a coach they have one of if not the highest potentials for future success. When you look at the football side of things the loss of Coach Hep is a huge blow but before his passing he got the ball rolling on building a program that can compete for bowl bids year in and year out. Not to mention the ongoing upgrades to the stadium and facilities.
So putting football and basketball on more equal footing the Big 10 looks like this:
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Michigan
Indiana
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Purdue
Minnesota
Northwestern
CRAZINESS
You have to, you have to put Michigan and Ohio State at the top, even with Michigan's slight downfall right now Wisconsin has won nothing ever.
SunCoastSooner wrote:There is a reason the Big 8 was still successfull while the SWC was dying.
1A. Oklahoma
1B. Nebraska
3. Texas
4. Kansas
5. Missouri
6. Texas A&M
7. Baylor
8. Oklahoma State
9. Colorado
10. Kansas State
11. Iowa State
12. Texas Tech.
This is fucking myopia at its best. Texas is by far the #1 value to the Big XII and Oklahoma is a close second. The first school that pops in everyone's mind when they think of the Big XII is Texas. Steady CWS apperances, they generally are ranked high in basketball and usually go to the sweet 16 or the elite 8 and their football program is consistently rated in the top ten. They also have a good golf program as well.
Texass detracts as much from the conference since its acceptance as it has brought. They try and impose their will on the rest of the conference and have successfully pissed virtually every bread winner in the group, with the amazing exception of OU, off at both the school and the conference process as whole. Mizzou will jump ship the moment (if ever) the Big 10 offers and Texass has been the main catalyst of this. Nebraska didn't want them in in the first place and only tells everyone else "I told you so" yearly at the conference meetings. If anything it Texass that is myopic and think they are what carries the BIg 12 when the Big 8 schools were still competitive and finacially well off before the inclusion of the Texass school. At the pace that UT is pissing off all the other schools like they did the SWC schools then there won't be a Big 12 in 2 decades. There is a reason that the SEC offered Texass A&M and Arkiesaw originally and not some combo of the two and Texas and if not for the TExass state legislature aTm would have jumped ship then.
If not for the points you brought up I would have dropped them even further down the list.
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
SunCoastSooner wrote:There is a reason the Big 8 was still successfull while the SWC was dying.
You're right that the SWC was dying, but you can't pin that on Texas. Being relegated completely to one state (after Arkansas left, anyway) and having four private schools as members certainly didn't help.
I don't know enough about the Big 12 to try and rank them, but I'm pretty sure I'd have Texas higher than #3 if I did.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Going back to this point . . .
SunCoastSooner wrote:There is a reason the Big 8 was still successfull while the SWC was dying.
You're right that the SWC was dying, but you can't pin that on Texas. Being relegated completely to one state (after Arkansas left, anyway) and having four private schools as members certainly didn't help.
I don't know enough about the Big 12 to try and rank them, but I'm pretty sure I'd have Texas higher than #3 if I did.
Actually you can pin its failure squarely on texass. UT forced conference policies on the rest of the schools with veiled threat to leave for greener pastures or becoming an independant that hindered their ability to compete with texass. It killed the compition in the conference and it actually hurt Texass itself in the long run as well. If not for the Big 8 Texass football would still be slugging along at 8 and 9 win seasons in a conference on the same par as the Mountain West.
Texass killed the SWC and is trying to do so to the Big 12 now. Nebraska and MIzzou would both jump ship at first sign of a decent island and Texass is the catlyst of this.
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
SEC - WOW! This is more difficult than I thought. UF brings more to the conference in ALL-SPORTS than any other. There is no set criteria so it makes it difficult.
1a. Florida
1b. Georgia
1c. Alabama
4. Tenn
6. Kentucky
7. Auburn
8. Arkansas
9. Vandy - on academics alone
10. Ole Miss
11. South Carolina
12. MSU
Back-to-Back-to-Back National Champions
Florida Gators: Champions in Basketball '06, Football '06, and Basketball '07
Terry in Crapchester wrote:I don't know if I'd put Northwestern last in the Big Ten. They're the only private school in the conference. By law, a conference's meetings must be open to the general public unless they have at least one private school as a member.
How does Northwestern being a private school negate their obvious lock on the #11 spot athletically?
That one is quite simple, actually. Drop Northwestern, and you have to make the Big Ten meetings open to the general public. Do you really think the Big Ten wants to do that?
Merely by virtue of being the only private school in the conference, Northwestern gets a higher position than #11, if the standard is which school do you drop.
Who else would you put below them?
Minnesota. For the reasons stated above.
When you're talking about a team's value to a conference, you have to take a lot of factors into account. Off the top of my head, here are some of the main things to consider: local market size, national fan base outside of the local market, past success in both revenue sports (football and men's basketball), current standing in both sports, and potential for future success in those sports. There are other factors too, but those are the main criteria, IMO.
I see nothing about private meetings. Must be some kind of Notre Dame paranoia going on there.
BTW, it may have been a while (like more than 60 years), but the Gophers have won 5 national championships in football.
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Shine wrote:You B10 guys are showing your obvious football bias by placing Indiana so low on your lists when they are still THE preeminent basketball program in the conference. The criteria put forth includes hoops and IU has the most past success and the largest fanbase outside of the local market. Not to mention now that they have a coach they have one of if not the highest potentials for future success. When you look at the football side of things the loss of Coach Hep is a huge blow but before his passing he got the ball rolling on building a program that can compete for bowl bids year in and year out. Not to mention the ongoing upgrades to the stadium and facilities.
So putting football and basketball on more equal footing the Big 10 looks like this:
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Michigan
Indiana
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Purdue
Minnesota
Northwestern
CRAZINESS
You have to, you have to put Michigan and Ohio State at the top, even with Michigan's slight downfall right now Wisconsin has won nothing ever.
I happen to agree that Wisconsin still belongs below Michigan, though we do have an NCAA basketball championship. I could borrow some logic from m2 and we'd easily have a dozen football titles as well.
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Goober McTuber wrote:
How does Northwestern being a private school negate their obvious lock on the #11 spot athletically?
That one is quite simple, actually. Drop Northwestern, and you have to make the Big Ten meetings open to the general public. Do you really think the Big Ten wants to do that?
Merely by virtue of being the only private school in the conference, Northwestern gets a higher position than #11, if the standard is which school do you drop.
Who else would you put below them?
Minnesota. For the reasons stated above.
When you're talking about a team's value to a conference, you have to take a lot of factors into account. Off the top of my head, here are some of the main things to consider: local market size, national fan base outside of the local market, past success in both revenue sports (football and men's basketball), current standing in both sports, and potential for future success in those sports. There are other factors too, but those are the main criteria, IMO.
I see nothing about private meetings.
Then you didn't read the entire thread.
SunCoastSooner wrote: Not only that but Baylor, as a private school has more to offer the conference from legal standpoint. With a private school in the conference the schools as a whole can get away with not having to fully disclose much financial info.
BTW, it may have been a while (like more than 60 years), but the Gophers have won 5 national championships in football.
If you want to go back that far, I'm sure Northwestern had a pretty decent football program 60 years ago as well.
Edit: After some research, Minnesota has a national championship as recently as 1960. But that national championship is a bit suspect, given that they had a 8-2 record and lost the Rose Bowl to Washington that year. Northwestern has no national championships, but did win or share the Big Ten championship four times in an 11-year stretch.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
That one is quite simple, actually. Drop Northwestern, and you have to make the Big Ten meetings open to the general public. Do you really think the Big Ten wants to do that?
Merely by virtue of being the only private school in the conference, Northwestern gets a higher position than #11, if the standard is which school do you drop.
Minnesota. For the reasons stated above.
When you're talking about a team's value to a conference, you have to take a lot of factors into account. Off the top of my head, here are some of the main things to consider: local market size, national fan base outside of the local market, past success in both revenue sports (football and men's basketball), current standing in both sports, and potential for future success in those sports. There are other factors too, but those are the main criteria, IMO.
I see nothing about private meetings.
Then you didn't read the entire thread.
SunCoastSooner wrote: Not only that but Baylor, as a private school has more to offer the conference from legal standpoint. With a private school in the conference the schools as a whole can get away with not having to fully disclose much financial info.
BTW, it may have been a while (like more than 60 years), but the Gophers have won 5 national championships in football.
If you want to go back that far, I'm sure Northwestern had a pretty decent football program 60 years ago as well.
Edit: After some research, Minnesota has a national championship as recently as 1960. But that national championship is a bit suspect, given that they had a 8-2 record and lost the Rose Bowl to Washington that year. Northwestern has no national championships, but did win or share the Big Ten championship four times in an 11-year stretch.
I didn't count the 1960 "championship". I also didn't include the private school thing, because it wasn't part of the criteria, just an aside that was thrown out there later on. I just think the only way Northwestern gets out of the #11 spot is if the Big 10 adds another team.
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
the SWC conference was dying because it was an all Texas conference and despite what Texans will tell you, no one else cared. there's a reason the Cotton Bowl was on at 10 AM on New Year's Day. i'd guess the MNC was decided or influenced in the Cotton Bowl maybe 3 or 4 times in the last 20 years of the SWC.
Rice, Houston, TCU, Baylor, SMU, and Tech don't have significant national fan bases. How many people do you think show up at the NYC SMU watch party bar? UT is a bigtime media player in the Big XII. ATM has a chance to be, though the Aggie fan base grossly overestimates their importance in "football history".
they had some good teams in the 90's but other than that, not ever a national factor. they've never played for "it all" in my 37 years on this planet.
Last edited by King Crimson on Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Going back to this point . . .
SunCoastSooner wrote:There is a reason the Big 8 was still successfull while the SWC was dying.
You're right that the SWC was dying, but you can't pin that on Texas. Being relegated completely to one state (after Arkansas left, anyway) and having four private schools as members certainly didn't help.
I don't know enough about the Big 12 to try and rank them, but I'm pretty sure I'd have Texas higher than #3 if I did.
Actually you can pin its failure squarely on texass. UT forced conference policies on the rest of the schools with veiled threat to leave for greener pastures or becoming an independant that hindered their ability to compete with texass. It killed the compition in the conference and it actually hurt Texass itself in the long run as well. If not for the Big 8 Texass football would still be slugging along at 8 and 9 win seasons in a conference on the same par as the Mountain West.
Texass killed the SWC and is trying to do so to the Big 12 now. Nebraska and MIzzou would both jump ship at first sign of a decent island and Texass is the catlyst of this.
You have spewed some really ignorant shit in your days but this has to take the cake. Texas didn't want Prop 48 athletes. Outside of OU every other school did. Texas wanted to stop NU from allowing counties to give Blue Chip kids "county" scholarships. Funny how NU has basically sucked since texas joined the Big XII. Since they cannot have 150 kids on the football team, the playing field is leveled.
If we had not joined the Big XII we would be in the Pac-10. Saying that we would be in the MWC is not only assinine but stinks of OU bias. Outside of Football, what has OU brought to the conference? Made the Final Four in girls basketball. Check, Texas did too. Made the Final Four in Men's Basketball....check Texas did too. Won a MNC in Football...check, Texas did too. CWS title? Nope. Texas did, twice.
what SCS said was a conference on "the same par" with the MWC. and the SWC was no great shakes at the end, was it? By comparison, the BIg 8 was winning NC's in football and very competitive in hoops. the only reason Texas is in the Big 8 is media markets. The Pac 10 stuff is not documented, and if it was you didn't do it. and it doesn't fit the UT self-styled Deloss Dodds profile: Overspending lords of the oil money flatland.
everyone cheats to keep up with Texas (the innocent institution). right?
Last edited by King Crimson on Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
